ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, May 16, 1995                   TAG: 9505160118
SECTION: BUSINESS                    PAGE: B-5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium


BIOTECH INDUSTRY BATTLING

Confronting a broad new attack on its moral and financial underpinnings, the biotechnology industry Monday began battling a religious movement seeking to ban patents on any living thing.

The religious campaign is the brainchild of biotech critic Jeremy Rifkin, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation on Economic Trends, and a gene-science task force within the United Methodist Church.

About 200 individuals from 80 religious organizations have joined what they call the ``Joint Appeal Against Human and Animal Patenting.'' It paints the whole idea of patenting life as akin to heresy.

Word of the effort last weekend set the industry's damage-control machinery spinning into high gear. Patent attorneys, company officials and lobby groups all weighed in with impassioned defenses of what they portrayed as a life-saving industry.

The Washington, D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents 560 companies, said it hoped to rally patient groups who have benefited from new therapies derived from gene patents.

At issue is anyone's ability to own rights to altered cell forms, newly identified genetic material and creatures that embody genetic technology. Such patents are a basic financial asset for hundreds of researchers and biotech companies.

``This is critical to new drug development,'' said Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Feldbaum cited an impressive list of breakthrough treatments for diabetes, heart attacks, cancer, AIDS and anemia that have all relied on patents on bioengineered life forms.

``They all took hundreds of millions of dollars to develop,'' he said. ``The stark fact is that money would not have been invested if there had not been some intellectual-property protection to ensure the investors some reasonable return.''



 by CNB